Harrell v. Graham

Citation27 S.E.2d 892,70 Ga.App. 178
Decision Date20 November 1943
Docket Number30117.
PartiesHARRELL et al. v. GRAHAM.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

This action, as finally amended, is an action by Mildred Graham through her father as next friend, against the superintendent of schools and the members of the board of education of Dodge County in their respective individual capacities, and the driver of the school bus, for injuries alleged to have been sustained because of the wilful and wanton negligence of the defendants. The petition alleges in part: "5. The trustees for Chauncey School District, during the year 1941 recommended to the defendants referred to above as members of said county board of education and M. W. Harrell, who was ex officio secretary of said board, and through the influence of said referred to trustees, had the defendants referred to as members of said board and M. W. Harrell, as aforesaid, to employ for said year, Locke Moore, a minor, age about 15 years, as school bus driver and operator of a school bus for the Chauncey School District. 6. On the afternoon of October 29, 1941 petitioner was being transported in a school bus from the Chauncey school to her home, in said county, with the said Locke Moore driving and operating said bus. 7. Said Locke Moore was driving said bus on a county road east, from the direction of the dwelling house of Archie Harrell towards Hamilton Cross Roads, said county. Petitioner shows that instead of proceeding on said county road to said Hamilton Cross Roads, said driver, about 300 yards from said cross road, suddenly turned into a three path side road about eight feet in width, which went in a direction southeast towards what is known as the Hamilton Road of said county. 8. Said driver plunged into said three path side road at an excessive and unreasonable rate of speed to wit, from forty to fifty miles per hour, and continued at that said speed. 9. On the southeast right hand side of said three-path side road, and right on the edge thereof, there was a grown haw tree, with its limbs and branches extending into said side road, and in the path of the oncoming bus. Said haw tree's branches and limbs at said time were full of thick, deadly, and injurious thorns, from one-fourth to three-fourths inches in length, with sharp and cutting points, capable of severely injuring a human being. 10. At said speed, on said three-path side road, and without giving any warning whatever to your petitioner, who was sitting close to the window, which was open on the right hand side of said bus, and on the side of said haw tree, said driver suddenly plunged into the limbs and branches of said haw tree, and a limb and thorn of said tree, with force and violence and flexibility, struck through said window striking petitioner in her right eye to which petitioner sustained the following damages *** 11. Said defendants were under a duty and responsible for the protection of petitioner as a school child, and her safety from the wanton, deliberate and criminally gross acts of total disregard for the life and health on the part of their agent and employee, Locke Moore said driver, and the said acts of said Locke Moore are imputable to defendants to the consequential injuries to petitioner thereof. 12. Said acts of said Locke Moore, driver as aforesaid, were wanton, deliberate, wilful, and malicious with a total disregard for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hennessy v. Webb
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 27, 1980
    ...formality, was held to be a governmental act for which the members of the board could not be sued individually. Harrell v. Graham, 70 Ga.App. 178, 27 S.E.2d 892 (1943). A public works camp warden was held not to be liable for torts of convicts when it was alleged that he was negligent in pe......
  • Foster v. Cobb County Bd. of Ed.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • January 23, 1975
    ...7 S.E.2d 183.' That decision controls this issue. Plaintiffs rely upon Roberts v. Baker, 57 Ga.App. 733, 196 S.E. 104; Harrell v. Graham, 70 Ga.App. 178, 27 S.E.2d 892; and Krasner v. Harper, 90 Ga.App. 128, 82 S.E.2d 267, wherein the general rule is stated that, 'The members of the county ......
  • Krasner v. Harper, 35114
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • April 28, 1954
    ...of their official duties unless it be shown that their negligence amounts to malicious, or wilful and wanton misconduct. Harrell v. Graham, 70 Ga.App. 178, 27 S.E.2d 892; Roberts v. Baker, 57 Ga.App. 733, 196 S.E. Under an application of the foregoing rules of law, whether the petition be c......
  • Yancey v. Green
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • September 20, 1973
    .... .' For examples of the application of this portion of the statute, see Roberts v. Baker, 57 Ga.App. 733, 196 S.E. 104; Harrell v. Graham, 70 Ga.App. 178, 27 S.E.2d 892, and Borochoff v. Fowler, 98 Ga.App. 411, 105 S.E.2d 764. Here, the factual situation is vastly different from that found......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT